 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| 3M Co. v. John J. Moroney & Co., No. 1-06-1304,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, June 13, 2007, Decided, June 13, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Company failed to comply with requirements of 805 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/5.25(c) in serving corporate customer with suit through Illinois Secretary of State; sheriff's return of original unserved summons gave customer's new address but company sent copy of substitute service to what it knew was customer's incorrect registered address.
|
|||||
| Czarnik v. Wendover Fin. Servs., No. 1-06-2379,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, June 13, 2007, Decided, June 13, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-1117, pro rata share of liability for counterplaintiff and counterdefendant in underlying personal injury action would be determined by a jury, and that determination would have a preclusive effect that would prohibit any further determination of liability through arbitration of a contribution action.
|
|||||
| Mikolajczyk v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1-05-3133,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, June 13, 2007, Decided, June 13, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in estate representative's strict products liability case against car manufacturers in instructing jury on consumer expectations test; a party could demonstrate a product had been defectively designed either under risk-utility test or consumer expectations test and, thus, the jury was properly instructed on applicable law.
|
|||||
| People v. Butler, No. 1-05-3288,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, June 13, 2007, Decided, June 13, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for harassment of a witness, in violation of 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/32-4a(a), was upheld because the statute was not overbroad or vague, and evidence that defendant approached the victims with the intent to harass them and threaten their lives was sufficient to support defendant's conviction.
|
|||||
| People v. Suastegui, No. 1-05-2429,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION, June 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Exclusion of testimony by witness that she identified someone other than defendant as shooter was not error as she denied making identification, thereby precluding admission under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/115-10.1. Tattoos photo was admissible as showed defendant's participation in gang and were overly prejudicial where case was about gang war.
|
|||||
| Meyers v. Woods, No. 3-06-0092,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a breach of contract action, trial court did not err in finding that a contractor's failure to add antifreeze to an in-floor heating system constituted a breach of the contract's implied warrant of reasonable workmanship because plaintiff's experts all opined that if antifreeze had been used, there would have been no damage to the system.
|
|||||
| People v. Sims, No. 3-05-0854,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, THIRD DISTRICT, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused its discretion in failing to give defendant's self-defense instructions on battery and resisting arrest charges; defendant's testimony, as well as photos of his injuries, raised inference that defendant was acting in self-defense under 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/7-1(a) when he kicked a squad car and a police officer.
|
|||||
| People v. Tabb, No. 1-05-1640,
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION, June 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sixth Amendment right to confront accusers was not violated when trial court refused to allow defendant to impeach testimony of witnesses with prior adjudication of delinquency. Evidence, including victim's identification of defendant, was sufficient to defeat motion for directed finding. Consecutive sentences did not violate Apprendi.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
